Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Exile Devaltos
One Eyed Teddies The InterBus Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 13:39:00 -
[1]
Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Or, if you can't remove it, make it costlier, or the time interval for the insurance shorter.
You could even add contract terms that the insurance will not be paid out to a player who fires the first shot or who is Concordorkened.
Originally by: Wrangler Thats odd, I always drink after dealing with you people..
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 13:46:00 -
[2]
Well, you could keep it as is for frigates, cruisers and even to some degree for capital ships... but battlecruisers and battleships geting a serious paygrade cut might be a very good idea.
1|2|3|4|5. |
Raging Knight
Virulence. Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 14:25:00 -
[3]
I don't see why insurance needs to be removed, new players would have a real tough time if there wasn't insurance, however remove insurance payout when the ship is lost to concord, ends suicide ganks, or atleast most of them.
|
Zephyr Rengate
Prophets Of a Damned Universe
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 14:28:00 -
[4]
No.
People would be less willing to pvp, it would be far too costly to take risks in pvp without insurance.
Though maybe remove insurance from illegal attacks in high sec only.
|
An Anarchyyt
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 14:33:00 -
[5]
Your logic astounds me! I bow to you, oh master of deductive reasoning.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 14:35:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Or, if you can't remove it, make it costlier, or the time interval for the insurance shorter.
You could even add contract terms that the insurance will not be paid out to a player who fires the first shot or who is Concordorkened.
In my life theres been heartache and pain, don't know if I can face it again. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Alski
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 14:45:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Alski on 06/04/2008 14:47:39 You seem to be under the impression that if insurance was removed the only effect would be an end to suicide ganking.
1. It wouldn’t, it would just raise the cost and therefore the minimum target value, faction fit pve ravens and such would still be poped, fools hauling BPOs and other valuables in frigates would still die, and industrials full of nice loot would still be economically valid targets for relatively cheep stealth bombers and gank fit cruisers, freighters hauling multiple billions would still be worth killing.
2. Removing insurance would absolutely kill small scale PvP in empire.
3. People who can afford to fly T2 ships would be at even more of an advantage over poorer players.
4. Loads of carebears would quit or at least be turned off the game.
5. Newbies would be penalised incredibly harshly
6. Worst of all it would force even more blobing, when the combined value of the ship hulls alone of a 60 man BS gang equals somewhere around 6 billion isk, who in there right mind would risk a near equally numbered engagement?
7. 0.0 would plunge even deeper into "capital ships online" because the risk of flying battleship fleets that can be poped like paper in a big fleet engagement being two to three times as hard to replace.
Needless to say your "argument" didn’t convince me.
Edit: forgot to add quotes around the word "argument". -
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Exile Devaltos
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:02:00 -
[8]
Your points are valid, but EVE, for all it's comparisons to real world economies, has a buggered insurance system. It simply makes no sense that you can recieve money for blowing your own ship up.
*shrugs* Just hoping that CCP will do something about it.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Originally by: Wrangler Thats odd, I always drink after dealing with you people..
|
AeonPhoenix
Triwave
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:12:00 -
[9]
Edited by: AeonPhoenix on 06/04/2008 15:14:45
I think this idea has logic and sense to it.
However...
If the Tier 1 insurance was utter crap, everyone who can will just fly tier 2 all the time.
All it does is hurt the new/poor players.
Unless you build them yourself, at crappy market prices you stand to lose around 10 million on battle cruisers and around 20 million on battleships, not that bad is it?
|
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:15:00 -
[10]
Originally by: AeonPhoenix If the Tier 1 insurance was utter crap, everyone who can will just fly tier 2 all the time.
All it does is hurt the new/poor players.
This. Lots of PvPers fly Drakes/Harbingers/Hurricanes all the time instead of their respective T2 counterparts due to how effective they are for their cost. They cost next to nothing to lose unrigged - take that away and they'd just be flying T2 again ...
|
|
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:29:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Alski on 06/04/2008 15:29:34
Originally by: Exile Devaltos It simply makes no sense that you can recieve money for blowing your own ship up.
The thing is I don’t really see that there is anything wrong with that, its main advantage is that it protects new players from ruining themselves while learning the game, and there already are not inconsiderable penalties for suicide ganking, loss of sec status, isk invested in modules, and the risk of the loot your aiming to get being blown up.
Sure that’s probably small fry compared to the guy who loses a faction fit battleship, but when it comes to such losses people tend to forget the whole “don’t fly what you can’t afford etc…”
Personally I don’t see anything wrong with suicide ganking, I’ve never done it but then as I said in another thread all these constant whines are doing for me – is to convince me that since its such a popular subject it must be well worth doing, and perhaps I should give it a try, and its worth baring that in mind since I imagine many people are thinking exactly the same thing, and is probably likely the reason we’re seeing an increase in the amount of threads about it – the activity itself is almost as old as Eve, it is not a new “thing” that people have just discovered, its just the forum whine flavour of the month and is probably perpetuating itself because of it.
IMO, the only aspect of suicide ganking that is currently worthy of any attention is freighter ganking, I’ve done a lot of freighter ops, and know how damn slow and boring they are to escort, I’ve also done the maths on what exactly it would take for an escort to be able to save a freighter from a suicide gank using remote logistics (shield/armor rep) and while its possible the amount of manpower required is slightly excessive, and so if CCP were to boost the hitpoints of fighters I’d say that would be a good change, but as for the rest of the stuff that gets suicided, there are enough ways to avoid it or at least greatly reduce the risk
And that’s the way I see it, there is nothing wrong with suicide ganking or insurance, but in those areas where there is a problem or imbalance, nerfing insurance or the activity itself it not the answer, the answer lies in boosting other aspects of the game for the benefit of all, such as more plentifull (and therefore cheeper) faction loot, or increasing the hitpoints or other stats of vulnerable ships, such as Freighters, Blockade runners, and Transports.
- Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
General Coochie
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:32:00 -
[12]
Not everyone sells GTCs or wanna mission to PvP (not saying you do) a lot of ppl fund their PvP by doing this. T2 ships not having a real insurance is enough.
I can agree to not let ppl killed by concord get their insurance though. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. The Vigil and The Caracal (duo PvP movie) |
Darwin Duck
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:33:00 -
[13]
In a perfect digital world I would agree to remove insurance. HOWEVER, losing you ship due to a server meltdown,lagout,de-sync and so on Insurance is needed. Losing you ship is ok if it's your fault, but loosing it to server issuses is not.
There is always petitions and I only have good experiences with the GM's when petitioning ship losses, I have gotten it bback everytime. But I have only done 4 petitions for ship losses since jan 2004, thats under 1 per year.
But I still don't think logs can "prove" every server issue ship loss. Insurance has to stay, it could be tweeked though to make payouts a bit lower. Like only giving 75% of the ship value instead of 110% for premium. (110% is not counting modules)
|
Stefx
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:34:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos It simply makes no sense that you can recieve money for blowing your own ship up. Quote:
So, you want anything that makes no sense to be removed? Like faster-than-light travel?
Like transfering 27 500 m3 of ore into another container in 0.1 seconds?
----------- MOP recruiting Industrialists/miners/traders/missioners/etc |
Tim Dust
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:36:00 -
[15]
If the goal is a realistic economy, why not let players provide the insurance and determine the rates themselves?
You could have a seperate program for noob insurance, so that newer players aren't discouraged. (Maybe call it "noobfare?")
|
Euriti
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:44:00 -
[16]
And kill pvp ? Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Benco97
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:45:00 -
[17]
I'm all for the removal of insurance on anything bigger than Cruisers. Then again, I'm all for the removal of stat-implants and learning skills and WTZ and jumpclones among other things.
Originally by: Kirjava This man speaks the truth, when he farts we count the length in seconds and make squillions buying winning lottery tickets.
|
Ralara
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:47:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Or, if you can't remove it, make it costlier, or the time interval for the insurance shorter.
You could even add contract terms that the insurance will not be paid out to a player who fires the first shot or who is Concordorkened.
do you not get it?
a brutix + fittings is like 30m tops
I'd still gank your 50m badger II.
here's a better idea: stop hauling around expensive stuff in paper bags! -- Ralara / Ralarina |
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:48:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Alski on 06/04/2008 15:48:56
Originally by: Tim Dust If the goal is a realistic economy, why not let players provide the insurance and determine the rates themselves?
Pretty simple economics is the reason, in real-life there are many drivers who go 5 years or more without making a single claim, and of those that do claim the majority of them are for minor damage, only a small proportion of the claims made are for theft or a complete write-off of the vehicle or other item that requires a full and complete payout anywhere near the original value of the item, and another minority proportion of the population never make a claim at all – this is how the insurance companies turn a profit.
Whereas… this is Eve… need I say more?
- Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Trix Rabbit
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:54:00 -
[20]
The goal of EVE is not and has never been to create a perfectly realistic analogue of the real world. It has been and will always continue to be to create a system that allows players to have fun. Getting rid of insurance is not fun, its a knee jerk reaction to suicide ganks that are taking place without economic justifications. Essentially you wish to change a major game mechanic because of the goonswarm.
It is especially silly when you consider that the goonswarms tactics can be solved through a multitude of less invasive techniques already suggested on these forums many times over.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
|
NightmareX
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 15:58:00 -
[21]
Edited by: NightmareX on 06/04/2008 15:58:17 Jesus, first they want some of the pvp tactics removed by nerfing nano ships to hell and back, and now you want to remove PVP completly. Uhm HELLOOOOO?
Jesus ******* christ, when is this madness gonna stop. THINK BEFORE YOU POST.
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:01:00 -
[22]
I definitely would not want to remove pvp.
|
Benco97
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:13:00 -
[23]
I don't want to remove PVP either, I like it. I just feel that loss makes things more real, more exciting.
These rich people with their huge warships who only lose a fraction of their money when it's blown up.. how is that loss? They may as well just get all their stuff back in the nearest space station automatically. Loss should hurt unless you budget yourself, not just "lol, i'md buy insurbance and noaw i no lose nufin'"
Eve IS PVP, I don't dispute that. Eve also used to be hard, it's a shame it isn't any more. I've never used insurance myself and I never will, don't care that it puts me at a disadvantage to those who do, it's that very disadvantage that makes the game fun. We're not in happy happy rainbow land where cows crap chocolate and rain is cola, we're in eve space and to me that means watch your back, stay vigilant and always remember to wear gloves.
Originally by: Kirjava This man speaks the truth, when he farts we count the length in seconds and make squillions buying winning lottery tickets.
|
NightmareX
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:24:00 -
[24]
Edited by: NightmareX on 06/04/2008 16:25:18 More expensive to lose in PVP = Lesser PVP.
That's the fact. EVE is a pvp game, and it need to let newer players get into PVP without hurting them to much.
Remove insurance = Many pvpers will leave this game, including many new players.
I don't want to make this game into a boring sucking on roids all day long, or to do missions.
If i want to kill npcs, i have Command & Conquer 3 - Tiberium Wars Kane Edition. And i also don't pay to kill npcs in this game, i pay to play / PVP with other peoples and kill them.
|
Ralara
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:26:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Benco97 These rich people with their huge warships who only lose a fraction of their money when it's blown up.. how is that loss?
Um, the loss would be the Gist X type this, the Corpi A type that, the Officer's Modified so-and-so.... -- Ralara / Ralarina |
Exile Devaltos
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:27:00 -
[26]
Actually, this thread wasn't made with suicide ganks in mind. It was made with the idea that you could buy a ship and insure it, and fully fit it, and then lose it and get most if not all your money back.
I was thinking more on market terms and how insurance *could* affect the economy if players are able to do as mentioned above.
Perhaps I'm wrong and there are no longterm effects on the markets?
And also, the fact that people automatically assumed this was a thread against suicide ganking when there was no mention of it, is humerous, I find.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Originally by: Wrangler Thats odd, I always drink after dealing with you people..
|
Terraform
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:35:00 -
[27]
If you want to make suicide ganking less profitable, remove insurance for ships dying to sentries or concord, or even just concord. Problem solved, next!
|
northwesten
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:38:00 -
[28]
I think two thing just needs to change!
You do the crim you wont have youe money like ganking people in High sec.
Also Depending on your Sec ratings if your below 0 then it should increase in price and your corp standing should take into account! Tho people like higher then 0 doesn't get a discount on insurance.
This to me will crub the behaver of pilots in high/low sec! so its only the bad boys get hurt! good people wins! right? Now why cant they do this?
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:42:00 -
[29]
Originally by: northwesten I think two thing just needs to change!
You do the crim you wont have youe money like ganking people in High sec.
Also Depending on your Sec ratings if your below 0 then it should increase in price and your corp standing should take into account! Tho people like higher then 0 doesn't get a discount on insurance.
This to me will crub the behaver of pilots in high/low sec! so its only the bad boys get hurt! good people wins! right? Now why cant they do this?
Nice troll Because Eve isn’t about PVP and Pirates are just bad people eh? - Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
northwesten
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:45:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Alski
Originally by: northwesten I think two thing just needs to change!
You do the crim you wont have youe money like ganking people in High sec.
Also Depending on your Sec ratings if your below 0 then it should increase in price and your corp standing should take into account! Tho people like higher then 0 doesn't get a discount on insurance.
This to me will crub the behaver of pilots in high/low sec! so its only the bad boys get hurt! good people wins! right? Now why cant they do this?
Nice troll Because Eve isnĘt about PVP and Pirates are just bad people eh?
troll? learn what a troll is moron!
and no EVE isnt just about PVP and Pirates so again learn what eve is!! EVE is wider than that!
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
|
Alex Shurk
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 16:54:00 -
[31]
Insurance is only a viable aid to those on low income. Removing it only hurts those on that low income. Narrows pvp down to a rich kids' playground. No.
|
Malcanis
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:16:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Or, if you can't remove it, make it costlier, or the time interval for the insurance shorter.
You could even add contract terms that the insurance will not be paid out to a player who fires the first shot or who is Concordorkened.
If you do this, you severely change warfare in 0.0
your hi-sec issues are not the only issue.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Moran Trayga
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:26:00 -
[33]
Remove insurance if the ship is lost in 0.0.
Reasoning:
- Losing a fleet battle means very little with insurance as the maximum loss is >50m per player
- 0.0 is meant to be the rich alliances playground
- RP reasons, why would an insurance company insure you for entering consequence free lawless space?
My sig says hello! |
Ghaztehschmexeh
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:38:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Raging Knight remove insurance payout when the ship is lost to concord, ends suicide ganks, or atleast most of them.
|
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:47:00 -
[35]
Originally by: NightmareX More expensive to lose in PVP = Lesser PVP.
Not at all.
More expensive to lose in PVP = smaller ships used.
IMHO, it would replace most of the battleships/battlecruisers used in PVP with frigates and cruisers. I really think the game would be much more enjoyable this way. _________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
Overwhelmed
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:52:00 -
[36]
Here's an idea. Anyone who posts the phrase "remove insurance" anywhere has 1,000,000,000 ISK deducted from their account to justify its funding. ---------------------------------------------------------- Posting And You Disclaimer: This is a meta-game alt for meta-game discussions. |
Zifrian
Gallente Federal Bank Interstellar Corporate Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:53:00 -
[37]
What I don't understand is why I get paid for a ship I didn't insure. That's kinda lame.
Plus why I would get money if Concord blows up my ship? That makes no sense any way you slice it.
|
NightmareX
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:55:00 -
[38]
Insurance is FINE, why change something that have worked perfect since release.
The only thing i can agree with is to remove the insurance to the suiciders who get killed by CONCORD.
|
Alski
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:55:00 -
[39]
Originally by: northwesten
troll? learn what a troll is moron!
Good start.
Originally by: northwesten
and no EVE isnt just about PVP and Pirates so again learn what eve is!! EVE is wider than that!
Indeed, however no PVP = no trade, Eve at its core is a PvP game, you are not safe anywhere, though you could also have argued that PvP takes on many forms.
Originally by: northwesten
ALSO like to add they can still do what ever in High/Low sec but its there risk! maybe just not work off the sec rating maybe just not pay them for there lose period! when they do the crime!
- You realise lowsec piracy as it once was is near dead already right? - You realise that piracy in the classic sense is not the only way to lose sec status right? - You realise that there are many players who currently reside in highsec or 0.0 - Not lowsec - that are currently in negative sec status for actions that were not piracy in the classic since right? - Also many of these people, including my alt, are in negative sec status are reside in the drone regions where killing rats does not raise security status.
I'll refrain from quoting you again, and just restate my argument in previous posts that insurance is not the issue, and there other ways of "fixing" or adjusting the risk reward of suicide ganking without nerfing insurance, and that any such change would seriously harm the game.
That said, assuming you weren’t trolling, my apologies for calling you out as such, to my mind those suggestions we’re blatant flamebait, but I can admit when I’m wrong so lets leave it at that.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 17:59:00 -
[40]
I say privatize insurance and hand it over to players. And while you're at it, privatize Concord and hand it over to players as well.
|
|
Marcus TheMartin
Tuxedo.
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:01:00 -
[41]
Remove Insurace for every one that has been playing for more than 3 months
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:02:00 -
[42]
Agreed. Let noobs have it easy; the rest of us suffer as Darwin intended.
|
northwesten
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:21:00 -
[43]
Edited by: northwesten on 06/04/2008 18:23:47
Originally by: Alski
thing is i really cant see not getting insurance for breaking the law would harm the game! I mean there been many nerf or balancing that people been crying that said it will harm the game! in honest I again cant see how this would.
If the Rich alliance wants to campaign in high sec then yer do so but its a lose! unless it hits the other alliance wallet as well.
I not saying it make it safe but It make it a true safer space tho still have a risk. Anyone can do what ever to course isk hit on hostile freighter etc but just pure ganking and then get rewards with out risk is not balanced PERIOD!!
People who saying blue in the face saying it's ok nothing wrong with it are the high sec gankers. In all honesty to get isk fast is not hard these days like GTC and farming alliances etc. So the risk in high sec still then but not every one can just jump in and course trouble.
I mean I come back to eve after few months break hearing got to be careful when mining in barges now as people on a war path on ganking them. In a week i had to run because I had 3 trys to pop my barges because the fear of losing a ship not much.
So not getting insurance money for breaking the law doesn't harm EVE it just harms the players! If the player has a problem with a mining corp then just war dec them.
So saying it harm EVE is bull but Thats your view but i dont agree! to me its balancing EVE not nerfing!
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Remove Insurace for every one that has been playing for more than 3 months
no i dont agree! removing all pilots insurance would harm the warefar across the board in 0.0 too.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
Marcus TheMartin
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:27:00 -
[44]
Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Remove Insurace for every one that has been playing for more than 3 months
no i dont agree! removing all pilots insurance would harm the warefar across the board in 0.0 too.
harsh death penalties are what eve is all about
insurance buffers shouldn't win war.
And existing insurance company would have their rates skyrocket the instant you undocked due to the death potential Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
northwesten
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:29:00 -
[45]
Edited by: northwesten on 06/04/2008 18:30:36
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: northwesten
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Remove Insurace for every one that has been playing for more than 3 months
no i dont agree! removing all pilots insurance would harm the warefar across the board in 0.0 too.
harsh death penalties are what eve is all about
insurance buffers shouldn't win war.
And existing insurance company would have their rates skyrocket the instant you undocked due to the death potential
true but it make wars very short! so having insurance that legal will make the war longer and a bigger challange! like bob and RAgoon lasted so long!
EDIT It will go back to the the old days of alliances! no money no war! but todays war is different and has most ways to win wars!
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:33:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
insurance buffers shouldn't win war.
Insurance buffers DO NOT win wars. There are a hundred other factors that go into weather or not a campaign is won or lost, but clearly the most obvious thing that is wrong with that statement is that both sides have insurance, how exactly does one side win a war and one side lose due to something that both sides have access to?
- Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 18:40:00 -
[47]
Question: does insurance inflate the prices of ships by increasing demand? If so, then wouldn't eliminating (non-player offered) insurance lower prices for ships?
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
Adv Asteroid Mining and RD Sobaseki Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 19:13:00 -
[48]
noooo!!! let the miners DIE!!! hahahaa
|
Falcon Troy
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 19:52:00 -
[49]
Remove insurance for ships destroyed...
...in 0.0 Space. ...by CONCORD. ...by Self Destruction. ...in Wars. (Consensual) ...ships that ENGAGE in piracy. (Lowsec)
Hello huge ISK sinkage and hardly any ISK constantly being added to the system. In other words the only people GETTING insurance are those that lose ships in self-defense/ships that are suicide-ganked. As it should have always been. _____________ Hai. |
Marcus TheMartin
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 19:57:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 06/04/2008 19:59:14
Originally by: Tim Dust Question: does insurance inflate the prices of ships by increasing demand? If so, then wouldn't eliminating (non-player offered) insurance lower prices for ships?
The t1 market is filled with the if I mine it its free crowd so ships are being sold for less than mineral cost which allows for ships to be insured for more than they were bought for pumping isk into the game.
Originally by: northwesten
true but it make wars very short! so having insurance that legal will make the war longer and a bigger challange! like bob and RAgoon lasted so long!
EDIT It will go back to the the old days of alliances! no money no war! but todays war is different and has most ways to win wars!
yes insurance is what is getting those nasty 0.0 alliances money those cunning bastards!
I was so blind I thought it would be things like 30mill a month fees (see Reunion), or Moon mining arrays in vast areas of space but clearly you have shown me the light that insurance is what lets 0.0 powerblocks do what they do. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
|
Sakura Nihil
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 20:34:00 -
[51]
I can sort of roll with the terms that if CONCORD kills you, no payout, but removing it or reducing it otherwise? No. You want even less PvP than we have now?
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
|
northwesten
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 20:41:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Sakura Nihil You want even less PvP than we have now?[/quote
you making it like there sod all going on! there plenty of pvp in 0.0
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Trinity Corporate Services
|
DarthJosh
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 21:44:00 -
[53]
insurance? what? WE HAVE INSURANCE
next thing you'd tell me is that eve actually has sound - Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. Desusigs! |
Dianeces
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 21:45:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Falcon Troy Remove insurance for ships destroyed...
...in 0.0 Space. ...by CONCORD. ...by Self Destruction. ...in Wars. (Consensual) ...ships that ENGAGE in piracy. (Lowsec)
Hello huge ISK sinkage and hardly any ISK constantly being added to the system. In other words the only people GETTING insurance are those that lose ships in self-defense/ships that are suicide-ganked. As it should have always been.
You forgot missions, anything that goes into lowsec period, and/or gets shot at by belt rats.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
|
Kahega Amielden
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 21:58:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 06/04/2008 21:59:18
It's been said before. Reduced insurance wouldn't stop PVP. Who would stop PVPing?
0.0 Alliances? Rofl, **** no
Roving gangs? No, they'd just fly in smaller/cheaper ships.
Lowsec pirates? Hell no. If anything, this would help the situation; pirates would be more at risk when pirating in a powerful ship due to the huge losses. You would have more pirates (e.g. picking targets for cash or ransoming) and fewer killmail *****s because their losses are actaully losses.
Hisec PVP corps? Nope. They do it for fun, and it would mean they could get a bit more ISK out of targets...They would lose more ISK, of course, but this wouldn't stop them, and would add a needed element of risk to hisec PVPing.
Removing insurance wouldn't stop PVP, it wouldn't even lower PVP. It would just cause people to be more careful flying expensive ships. Rather than going out in a battleship, some people might opt for cheaper cruisers. Saying that loss stops PVP makes no sense. If this was true, then WoW would be the most PVP-centric game there is due to no real death penalty.
If you want to protect newbies, then maybe still allow full insurance for T1 frigs, and maybe partial (or -maybe- full) for t1 cruisers.
|
ViolenTUK
Vindicated Exiles
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 23:30:00 -
[56]
Insurance needs to stay. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with insurance as it stands. The net effect of funding a ship for it to be lost and the insurance to pay out is still a loss. A loss of a ship is expensive for anyone and removing insurance would discourage pvp type activities.
www.eve-players.com |
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.06 23:31:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 06/04/2008 23:31:43
Originally by: ViolenTUK Insurance needs to stay. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with insurance as it stands. The net effect of funding a ship for it to be lost and the insurance to pay out is still a loss. A loss of a ship is expensive for anyone and removing insurance would discourage pvp type activities.
Sigh.
1) It's still a loss, but a tiny loss. Losing a ******* battleship should cost more.
2) Read my above post. This "zomfg it would discourage PVP" **** has no basis.
If you REALLY need to keep insurance in for some stupid reason, then at least make it max 50% mineral cost for BC/BS
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:33:00 -
[58]
What's the history of insurance in this game? Was it introduced at some point or has it always been here?
|
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:34:00 -
[59]
It was introduced at some point I believe.
|
Jhonen Senraedi
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:44:00 -
[60]
Not sure I agree with removing insurance totally as when you add mod costs to those of the ship...everyone is looking at a significant hit to their wallets... Perhaps a way forward would be relating it to sec status...i.e..count positive sec like a no claims bonus and neg sec a higher premium...say 5% per point either way...thus a plus 5 would pay 25% less..and a -5/-10 25%-50% more in premiums? I do agree with removing insurance from high sec aggressors though(Not war situations)...as it make for suicide gankers choosing their targets more carefully! Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
|
Zeba
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:45:00 -
[61]
Insurance is fine. If someone is feeling ****y over getting suicide ganked then they need to use the game mechanics to avoid it in the future.
Originally by: Malcanis Too many people confuse "Waah, I didn't get my own way" with 'poor customer service'.
|
Alski
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 00:46:00 -
[62]
Love the way that people "against insurance" are making broad seeping statements about its effects or lack of, without a single argument to back them up - Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 02:36:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Jhonen Senraedi Not sure I agree with removing insurance totally as when you add mod costs to those of the ship...everyone is looking at a significant hit to their wallets... Perhaps a way forward would be relating it to sec status...i.e..count positive sec like a no claims bonus and neg sec a higher premium...say 5% per point either way...thus a plus 5 would pay 25% less..and a -5/-10 25%-50% more in premiums? I do agree with removing insurance from high sec aggressors though(Not war situations)...as it make for suicide gankers choosing their targets more carefully!
THe only time the extra cost is significant is when you CHOOSE to fit t2 stuff. Even then, it's minimal.
|
ViolenTUK
Vindicated Exiles
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 12:30:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
2) Read my above post. This "zomfg it would discourage PVP" **** has no basis.
I did read your post and there was no justification for your assumption. Lack of insurable ships would discourage pvp as players would be perturbed by the possible loss of a ship. This was the basis for my argument. If you paid attention to what the other forum members have written so far in this thread you will see that players will be actively discouraged. They have told you that.
www.eve-players.com |
Elona King
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 13:10:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Raging Knight however remove insurance payout when the ship is lost to concord, ends suicide ganks, or atleast most of them.
Would this be true?
|
Exile Devaltos
One Eyed Teddies The InterBus Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 13:32:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Elona King
Originally by: Raging Knight however remove insurance payout when the ship is lost to concord, ends suicide ganks, or atleast most of them.
Would this be true?
No, but it would make it expensive. And the miner who lost his mining ship can be happy knowing that the ganker spent 5 times as much on the gank than what the miner lost.
Anyway, as highlighted, the main concern of this thread is the impact of insurance on the market! We're talking boatloads of ISK flowing in and thus causing inflation. Is enough ISK flowing out to counterbalance it? etc etc.
Originally by: Wrangler Thats odd, I always drink after dealing with you people..
|
Drakus
Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 15:00:00 -
[67]
My idea, (and i am sure others have put it out there before me as well) is to just say that if concord/sentry guns are on your km, you get the BASIC payout. Its like an uninsured ship.
This would make it so that people that make a mistake arn't totally destroyed, and that people that if you ARE suicided then there was a damn good reason for it. If they need to use 10bs to take ya down, then they will get only... say 200m back in total... cost of ships about 1b (lets say) so they would only go after ships that have more then 800m in the hold...
I always thought it was weird that you get insurance if your ship is destroyed by concord or sentry guns. It makes sense for people that are just starting and make a mistake, but after a month or 2, its just stupid. So make concord or sentry guns null your insurance and give you just the basic payout.
|
RaTTuS
BIG Soul of Fountain
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 15:48:00 -
[68]
remove it if concord kills the ship make it less effective from 0.4 - 0.0 i.e. 80% in 0.4 60% in 0.3 30% in 0.2 10% in 0.1 0% in 0.0
-- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve
|
ry ry
StateCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 15:53:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Or, if you can't remove it, make it costlier, or the time interval for the insurance shorter.
You could even add contract terms that the insurance will not be paid out to a player who fires the first shot or who is Concordorkened.
say, for example, i lost a rigged vagabond to a massive desync.
i can't petition that back, because apparently the only logs CCP have are made of wood and stored in a shed. that insurance payout softens the blow somewhat.
|
Mirph
EMPiRE. Trinity.
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 15:56:00 -
[70]
Contracts remove insurance. Freighters remove insurance.
So if you want to move ships... Can't do it yourself and don't have a carrier.
You already have to lose rigs + insurance.
|
|
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 15:56:00 -
[71]
I'm not against piracy, suicide ganking, "griefing," or other such tactics-- but why would insurance pay out if you're shot by the police? That doesn't make sense.
Then again, I don't think it makes sense that Concord automatically sees you if you commit a crime.
|
Ordon Gundar
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 16:06:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Moran Trayga Remove insurance if the ship is lost in 0.0.
Reasoning:
- Losing a fleet battle means very little with insurance as the maximum loss is >50m per player
- 0.0 is meant to be the rich alliances playground
- RP reasons, why would an insurance company insure you for entering consequence free lawless space?
This makes sense to me. Why WOULD an insurance company pay out for a ship lost in 0.0 space. This would act as a nice isk sink for all those richies blowing the hell out of eachother in 0.0!!
|
Lubomir Penev
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 16:09:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate No.
People would be less willing to pvp, it would be far too costly to take risks in pvp without insurance.
So wrong. People PvP all the time in uninsurable rigged T2 ships.
-- Heat, easy to burn your mods by mistake, hard to get it to work when you need it the most. Well designed interface CCP! |
AKULA UrQuan
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 16:14:00 -
[74]
Ditch the automatic base insurance. Leave the rest untouched. That "free" insurance policy has always baffled me.
MS and Titan loses will be slightly more painfull then. Not much more considering the officer gear they tend to have. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Alora Venoda
GalTech Giant Space Amoeba
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 17:31:00 -
[75]
There is an easy solution to the problem of voiding insurance for suicide ganks without hurting new players that accidentally shoot a wreck or something.
only void the insurance if the ship was credited for killing another ship while being criminally flagged in hi-sec. this way it only punishes an actual suicide gank. as a side effect, if the victim manages to limp away with hull still intact, the attacker still gets insurance. but that seems to be a fair trade considering an accidental attack would also appear to be a "failed suicide gank".
i really don't see any downsides to this added rule, except against the suicide gankers
(note: i have not read the whole thread so i am not sure if this was already suggested)
~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless.
Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application. |
Forge Lag
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 17:34:00 -
[76]
Keep default insurance, it is about the same as the cheapest version, it just protects the poor forgetfull souls.
Make the top insurance pay less, way below any imaginable market cost but make it cost less at the same time.
The real newbies have issues paying their insurance costs on top of ship cost and do not realize the decision is platinum or bust. And the people calculating ship loss not as risk but as a cost would have higher cost making them a bit more selective.
Atm it there is no real choice, you insure plat and if you somehow do not lose ship in 3 months the most economic sound course of action is to suicide you trusty craft. It just does not feel right.
The issue (if there is any issue at all) of suicide ganks is there is no protection against them and no way to "win" anything if you miraculosly succeed fending them off. No insurance would make suicide ganks more costly but will not help victims and the nonsence of it at all. As someone said, even uniunsured, Brutix makes fine ganking ship.
|
Fenren
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 17:50:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos Your points are valid, but EVE, for all it's comparisons to real world economies, has a buggered insurance system. It simply makes no sense that you can recieve money for blowing your own ship up.
*shrugs* Just hoping that CCP will do something about it.
odd... i have such an insurance for my cellphone... althou it is not a battlephone so its life expectancy might be a little longer...
|
Kage Toshimado
Doom Guard Soul of Fountain
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 18:08:00 -
[78]
I'm personally a little torn on the subject and can see that both sides of the insurance issue have valid ideas.
It's starting to look like most people are agreeing that insurance should not get paid out if someone gets Concorded. (ie. suicide ganks on Joe Hauler/Miner)
To be perfectly honest, I find it rather exciting trying to avoid the pirate gankers. At the same time, it is rather amusing and yet also crappy when it happens to me or someone I know because this is just a BS way to go out. But hey, that's the game... love it or leave it I guess.
I think some of the insurance on some ships definately needs to be adjusted when it comes to payout.
|
NightmareX
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 20:35:00 -
[79]
Believe me when i say it, by just removing the insurance today, will be the stupiest thing you can do EVER.
You don't see it, but remove the insurance, and it will be a big hit to PVP, many will just leave the PVP side because it's gonna be to expensive to PVP in the end.
The insurance is 100% fine now except for the insurance payout when you suicide and get agressed by CONCORD.
Can't we just remove the whole PVP while we are at it?, then maybe all of the carebears will be happy. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Marlona Sky
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 21:08:00 -
[80]
Not sure if I said it in this post or one of the other dozens of post about insurance, they will be revamping the insurance, so most likely the issue with the free suicide ganking problems will be taken care of.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you and... scouts, logistic ships, people to web you, alts with bonuses, not fitting nice gear, avoiding trafic hubs, etc... easy right?? |
|
Darcel Black
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 21:08:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Darcel Black on 07/04/2008 21:08:13 On second thoughts, don't. -Darcel |
Methesda
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 21:14:00 -
[82]
Originally by: northwesten
troll? learn what a troll is moron!
LOL. Thats going in my sig. Way to teach a concept.
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 21:35:00 -
[83]
I think there's a lot of assumption going around as to exactly how frequently insurance is actually used by a lot of people.
Insurance - like learning skills and implants - is optional. Certainly it's a good idea while you're still learning the game, but once you're confident enough to know how to not lose your ship, you don't need to insure your ship anymore, otherwise it becomes a personal isk sink.
Thus, I believe nerfing insurance across the board will only punish the wrong people: those who are learning to play Eve as the PvP game it was designed to be.
I can live with the idea of voiding insurance for suicide gankers, as long as it doesn't affect the new guy who makes a genuine mistake. The idea of no insurance for suicide gankers who actually succeed in killing their target could possibly work, but I guess it depends on how viable CCP wants suicide ganking to be, and to what extent they would rather have people learn how not to present themselves as viable targets to begin with.
/Ben
Ben Derindar: Eve CSM candidate
|
Hermosa Diosas
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 22:14:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Hermosa Diosas on 07/04/2008 22:15:08
Originally by: Exile Devaltos Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Or, if you can't remove it, make it costlier, or the time interval for the insurance shorter.
You could even add contract terms that the insurance will not be paid out to a player who fires the first shot or who is Concordorkened.
Errr why ?? Reasons damn it... But for me no way - the effort and cost for new ships is bad now ppl will leave the game in droves!
|
gpfwestie
Blue. Blue Federation
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 22:46:00 -
[85]
Removing insurance just means that those on a low income cannot play (PVP Combat I mean).
The rich kids already fly and lose T2 Fitted, Tech 2 ships on which the payout is a fraction of what they cost, so it will not affect them in the slightest.
|
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 22:51:00 -
[86]
Removing insurance can only be a good thing.
If losing your ship hurts so bad you needed insurance to hack it, you should be flying something else anyway.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Nika Vorbarr
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:04:00 -
[87]
People always shoot down suggestions to make hisec safer, etc, by saying that Eve is supposed to be a cold, cruel universe. I say we live up to those words by completely removing insurance, and by making ships stay in space if you logoff or your connection drops. And no getting ships back by petition, no matter what happened. Enough of this pansy game, let's go hard core.
|
TornSoul
BIG Soul of Fountain
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:05:00 -
[88]
Edited by: TornSoul on 07/04/2008 23:06:22
Originally by: Benco97
I don't want to remove PVP either, I like it. I just feel that loss makes things more real, more exciting.
These rich people with their huge warships who only lose a fraction of their money when it's blown up.. how is that loss? They may as well just get all their stuff back in the nearest space station automatically. Loss should hurt unless you budget yourself, not just "lol, i'md buy insurbance and noaw i no lose nufin'"
Eve IS PVP, I don't dispute that. Eve also used to be hard, it's a shame it isn't any more. I've never used insurance myself and I never will, don't care that it puts me at a disadvantage to those who do, it's that very disadvantage that makes the game fun. We're not in happy happy rainbow land where cows crap chocolate and rain is cola, we're in eve space and to me that means watch your back, stay vigilant and always remember to wear gloves.
*edit* - I'd just like to add, Before Insurance was around people still PVP'd, Before WTZ people still hauled, Before Learning skills people just shut the hell up and learned the skills they needed. If the game is so goddamn unplayable without those three things then how did it last?The game is getting softer and softer and one day there will be nothing of the original EVE left except for the fact that it's a game with spaceships. Still, if that's what you want then please, go ahead and make WoW in space, you'll be removing everything that makes EVE special.
I find myself agreeing with 87.634% of this...
An "all or nothing" solution, while I'd personally not mind, would probably hurt EVE overall more than it would do good though.
Some middleground should be found.
BIG Lottery |
Tim Dust
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:06:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Tim Dust on 07/04/2008 23:07:15
Quote: Enough of this pansy game, let's go hard core.
Besides, you could continue to allow noobs to have insurance, possibly even for free.
|
ViolenTUK
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:25:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos
Anyway, as highlighted, the main concern of this thread is the impact of insurance on the market! We're talking boatloads of ISK flowing in and thus causing inflation. Is enough ISK flowing out to counterbalance it? etc etc.
Basic insurance is covered by default by the insurance company and wasn't donated by the contract acceptor and as such when the basic contact insurance money is paid out this money is in effect generated at that time. This could lead to inflation. However we have all seen a drop in ship prices over the years and in fact the economy has seen deflation rather than inflation. Inflation isn't a concern with the economy at present.
www.eve-players.com |
|
Bellum Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:27:00 -
[91]
All insurance needs to be removed across the board. Period.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Turin
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:41:00 -
[92]
Insurance is fine. There is no reason to change anything OTHER than having no payout if concord kills your ship. Thats the only change that needs be made. The rest of it is fine. All you dillusional kiddies out there who think it would stop the big fleets of the rich alliance are less than realistic. ( this is a nice way of saying your dumb )
Basically your idea is a really really bad one.
_________________________________ Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
Kahega Amielden
|
Posted - 2008.04.07 23:44:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus All insurance needs to be removed across the board. Period.
Not necessarily. I could see keeping insurance -maybe- for t1 cruisers and definitely t1 frigs, if for no other reason to stop the noobs from getting totally ****** over. By the time you're in a battleship, you should be able to support it.
|
ry ry
StateCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 11:41:00 -
[94]
Edited by: ry ry on 08/04/2008 11:46:42
Originally by: Anubis Xian Removing insurance can only be a good thing.
If losing your ship hurts so bad you needed insurance to hack it, you should be flying something else anyway.
thats just silly. you're either incredibly rich, fly crap ships, or rarely fly in fleet ops.
a run of being primaried (your character's name starts with an A, so it's not outside the realms of possibility) will quickly burn a hole in most people's wallet. What do you do when you're down to your last couple of hundred mil? start turning up in progressively less useful ships? stop turning up for fleetops altogether, until you've assembled another billion to burn?
and if you're not flying fleet BS, insurance doesn't even come into the equation, since the insurance values on t2 ships are so pitiful they hardly cover the cost of fittings.
without these payouts, only the richest space-holding alliances would get to pvp constantly, and that would be rubbish. insurance keeps the gears of war turning.
|
ry ry
StateCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 11:49:00 -
[95]
although it's worth pointing out i've never owned more than 500mil liquid isk at any one time, so i should probably only ever fly punishers or something in the first place, lest i fail to hack it.
|
Mister Xerox
A Multitude of Blues
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 11:55:00 -
[96]
Originally by: General Coochie
I can agree to not let ppl killed by concord get their insurance though.
This is the only agreeable part to the entire post:
CONCORD involved = Zero insurance, all modules destroyed, no wreck.
If you think the inclusion of CONCORD on the kill (saw this the other day when a neutral flagged hostile, corp member fired at it... got BBQd by CONCORD) then you can petition it.
Otherwise, don't change insurance as it stands now except, perhaps, to use a weighted market average to set the insurance value on T2 ships (discarding stupidly high market orders).
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 12:26:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Kerfira on 08/04/2008 12:28:13 The worst thing about insurance being as it is (ie. way higher than the price of a new T1 ship), is that it takes a lot of 'Sense of Accomplishment' out of the game. These days, battleships are throw-away ships.... It's not something people are proud of flying, nor something others respect you for doing (and risking).
If insurance were restricted/removed, it would mean more variety in which ships are used. Earning the money to pay for a Battleship (after receiving insurance from the last one) is a piece of cake today. If a battleship cost the full price, more people would be flying cruisers/battlecruisers instead, thus giving us a more varied game. It'd also reintroduce the 'adrenaline rush' of taking something valuable into combat and risking loosing it.
Second thing to consider is that insurance was introduced into the game when ISK was FAR harder to come by. These days, getting ISK is easy....
So, what I think should be done is: 1. Remove insurance for CONCORD kills 2. Halve insurance payout in low-sec. No insurance payout in 0.0. 3. Make other T1 insurance payouts the price of replacement ships, not way above as today.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Ryoji Tanakama
Daikoku Fleet Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 12:30:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Exile Devaltos Do it. This isn't a troll, but a logical observation.
Funny, I could have sworn it was an arbitrary request with no supporting argument at all.
~Ryoji Tanakama
Daikoku Fleet Shipyards |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |